Hitler... one of the most significant figures who ever lived"President J.F. Kennedy

"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived...
He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.
He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."- John F. Kennedy,
President of the
United States of America

No, thats what happens when a proud German tries to free himself and his countrymen from the ravages of Versailles, purge itself from foreign economic control, and destroy the most godless mass murdering regime the world has ever seen and is met by the relentless efforts of corrupt and greedy leaders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by white_is_nice

In my opinion we would all be better off if he would of stuck with art instead of bringing shame on the German people.

Yeah I suppose the German people would have been better off capitulating to the demands of foreign powers and allow its economy to be controlled by centralized banks without giving a fight. Its not like America and Western Europe exist in a great position and benefited greatly from Hitler's defeat, Eastern Europe surely didn't.

Frankly we would have all been better off had the Germans taken Paris in 1914 and achieved and early victory over France as the Schlieffen plan had envisioned with an early ultimate victory. Had that happened the hell of World War one would have been avoided:no Somme, no Verdun, no Isonzo I -XI, etc etc ,the Communists would have never taken over in Russia as there would have been no revolution, there would never have been an unjust Versailles treaty. In the end Germany would have dominated a far more intact vibrant Europe without all that followed due to four years of attrition. Hitler would have been irrelevant, some discharged lance corporal, maybe a minor political figure who knows in the greater German Empire under the Kaiser

If I recall correctly, Hitler finished his term in office with his country aflame, millions of his countrymen dead, most of the cities he was sworn to protect destroyed, and he himself reduced to living in a hole until he blew his own brains out. Not really a success, was it?

Oh so Hitler bombed civilian populations in Germany? As I recall, it was Roosenfeld (Jew), Churchill (Jew), and Stalin (close enough) who started mass bombing of German cities. Germany was fighting an all-out war against Bolshevism as represented by Russian Communism and American Capitalism - merely two wings of the same vulture of prey.

You are aware that all the major Western powers were under the direct control of extremely well-heeled Marxist Jewish interests?

The Federal Reserve existed back then and it had the same ability to create money out of thin air then as it does now. Ask Bush, he and his fellows have spent ten trillion dollars that didn't even exist. Now we're up to our eyeballs in debt as a country with no way out but through the Federal Reserve, the very same banking monstrosity which gave all that non-existent money to Dubya and the Neo-Cohens in the first GD place.

My point here is that America's false economy was able to ramp up military production for 10 years while Germany had to make do with what it could acquire while British and American bombers pounded its cities around the clock...at will. The fight wasn't close to fair and yet German warriors gave the brainwashed armies of the duped Western powers a hell of a good fight.

WWII was a war between Communism (Jewish government) and National Socialism (Aryan government). And as per usual, the Jews got naive white boys and young men to do their dirty work for them, aka mass fratricide in the name of -isms. And all the while the bankers were making a killing on all the killing, because world wars don't come cheap. The only thing cheap in war is white boys willing to go to foreign counties and kill the bad guys for their "leaders".

Hitler didn't so much lose, he was beaten. He and Germany did the best they could with limited means. In the end they were simply overwhelmed by an unscrupulous enemy with unlimited military might. Germany was beaten and humiliated by the combined armed forces of several Jewish-controlled governments. And the Nazis knew exactly what they were up against and still they fought to the bitter end.

And yes, Hitler was successful because he was a soldier. But warfare in an age of mass mechanization, aerial bombers, and accurate machine gun fire isn't war, it's a slaughter of whichever side is outnumbered and outgunned.

That's what nuclear weapons represent: an end to war. That, or an end to mankind.

__________________

"The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government." --Thomas Paine

Napoleon Bonaparte comes to mind. Remember wars were far more limited in his day so there was less collacteral destruction due to the limitations of weaponry and logistics, but he came to dominate Europe for a decade rising from total obscurity as a lowly artillery lieutenant in 1789 to one of France's greatest hero during the French revolution and subsequent Empire of his creation and is considered by many the greatest general of all times . From Emperor of the greatest European empire since Charlemagne to a prisoner on St. Helena. That's quite a fall as well

Napoleon had actually crossed my mind while writing my post on Hitler, but I still concluded Hitler's failure was total and that he was the greater historic failure. To this day historians consider Napoleon one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived. His place is along side Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar. Wellington who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo said he was the greatest general of all times: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon." Also the Bonaparte dynasty survived him in his nephew who became Emporer of the Second French Empire and first President of France. These were just a couple of things I had to consider. I'm sure there are more related to Napoleon's legacy. Towns and streets named after him and other examples of his iconic stature today maybe. Compared to Napoleon, I still have to conclude Hitler's failure was a total one.

No, thats what happens when a proud German tries to free himself and his countrymen from the ravages of Versailles, purge itself from foreign economic control, and destroy the most godless mass murdering regime the world has ever seen and is met by the relentless efforts of corrupt and greedy leaders.

Yeah I suppose the German people would have been better off capitulating to the demands of foreign powers and allow its economy to be controlled by centralized banks without giving a fight. Its not like America and Western Europe exist in a great position and benefited greatly from Hitler's defeat, Eastern Europe surely didn't.

Isn't Germany controlled by a central bank now?I'M not sure , that is why i'm asking. No , the Us and Western Europe didn't benefit from Hitlers defeat.The Zionists did...........They still are as a matter of fact.

Isn't Germany controlled by a central bank now?I'M not sure , that is why i'm asking. No , the Us and Western Europe didn't benefit from Hitlers defeat.The Zionists did...........They still are as a matter of fact.

And where exactly do you think those Zionists were during the days in which the Allies defeated the Third Reich?

Napoleon had actually crossed my mind while writing my post on Hitler, but I still concluded Hitler's failure was total and that he was the greater historic failure. To this day historians consider Napoleon one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived. His place is along side Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar. Wellington who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo said he was the greatest general of all times: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon." Also the Bonaparte dynasty survived him in his nephew who became Emporer of the Second French Empire and first President of France. These were just a couple of things I had to consider. I'm sure there are more related to Napoleon's legacy. Towns and streets named after him and other examples of his iconic stature today maybe. Compared to Napoleon, I still have to conclude Hitler's failure was a total one.

Indeed I have to agree. Napoleon's failure falls far short of Hitler's in its totality

No. Why would you think this? Hitler failed miserably in his duty to protect the German people. If you can't win the war, don't get involved in one. It really is that simple, even for a simpleton like Hitler.